In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:52:31 -0700: Hi, [snip] >-----Original Message----- >From: Harry Veeder > >"According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but >rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to >exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a >free electron and free proton/deuteron?" > >Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four >miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by >EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not >known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle, >but it would not be enough.
The Ni doesn't need to undergo electron capture. The point was that a proton and an electron could be absorbed concurrently by the Ni, combining to form a new neutron in the Ni. This is not impossible, and doesn't even violate the standard model. It also means that there would be no *free* neutrons created. Hence the lack of free neutrons being detected. The only question is, would the electron be kept by the new nucleus, resulting in neutron creation, and a heavier isotope of the original nucleus, or would it be ejected resulting in a nucleus of the next element in the periodic table? (If past experience is any guide, then likely sometimes one, sometimes the other). e.g. H + 58Ni -> 59Ni or H + 58Ni -> 59Cu > >As for outright capture of an electron by any nucleus having a transmutation >effect, you must realize that the proton consists of three quarks, like the >neutron - but NOT the same three. This is why EC alone is not enough to >change a proton into a neutron. Conservation of energy is another reason, at least where free protons and neutrons are concerned. > >One of the quarks must be replaced for the change to occur. An electron >anti-neutrino in combination with the electron is one way this can be done, >and that is one of W-L's seven miracles. This is due to conservation of >baryon number and other details, which are above my pay grade to explain. >Baryon number is conserved in the interactions of the Standard Model, so >violation of that would require another miracle, equivalent to conservation >of energy. Baryon number is conserved as long as the sum of the number of protons and neutrons remains constant. Nobody is suggesting that this be violated, not is it necessary. (IOW this basically a "straw man" argument.) > >The neutron consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark with heavier >charge, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can >be achieved by the interaction of a W boson but that does not normally >happen the other way. This means the neutron decays into a proton (which >contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron >antineutrino. The reverse can happen, but not without the neutrino. >Neutrinos are seldom absorbed by matter. In an LENR cell, a few neutrino >absorptions per year could be expected. That is the third or fourth miracle. It isn't necessary to capture a free neutrino. It's possible to create a neutrino anti-neutrino pair, then keep the one that you want (need), and discard the other. This is the likely mechanism in most such reactions. (Some beta decay reactions have a half life of mere microseconds, indicating that capture of a neutrino (or anti-neutrino) from an external source is highly unlikely to be the mechanism involved.) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
